Page:06.CBOT.KD.PropheticalBooks.B.vol.6.LesserProphets.djvu/101

 known to him the dream and give the interpretation of it; and when they were not able to do this, he gave forth the command (Dan 2:1-13) that they should all be destroyed. But Daniel interceded with the king and obtained a respite, at the expiry of which he promised (Dan 2:14-18) to comply with his demand. In answer to his prayers and those of his friends, God revealed the secret to Daniel in a vision (Dan 2:19-23), so that he was not only able to tell the king his dream (Dan 2:24-36), but also to give him its interpretation (Dan 2:37-45); whereupon Nebuchadnezzar praised the God of Daniel as the true God, and raised him to high honours and dignities (vv. 46-49). It has justly been regarded as a significant thing, that it was Nebuchadnezzar, the founder of the world-power, who first saw in a dream the whole future development of the world-power. “The world-power,” as Auberlen properly remarks, “must itself learn in its first representative, who had put an end to the kingdom of God the theocracy, what its own final destiny would be, that, in its turn overthrown, it would be for ever subject to the kingdom of God.” This circumstance also is worthy of notice, that Nebuchadnezzar did not himself understand the revelation which he received, but the prophet Daniel, enlightened by God, must interpret it to him. According to Bleek, Lengerke, Hitz., Ew., and others, the whole narrative is to be regarded as a pure invention, as to its plan formed in imitation of the several statements of the narrative in Gen 41 of Pharaoh's dream and its interpretation by Joseph the Hebrew, when the Egyptian wise men were unable to do so. Nebuchadnezzar is the copy of Pharaoh, and at the same time the type of Antiochus Epiphanes, who was certainly a half-mad despot, as Nebuchadnezzar is here described to be, although he was not so in reality. But the resemblance between Pharaoh's dream and that of Nebuchadnezzar consists only in that (1) both kings had significant dreams which their won wise men could not interpret to them, but which were interpreted by Israelites by the help of God; (2) Joseph and Daniel in a similar manner, but not in the same words, directed the kings to God (cf. Gen 41:16; Dan 2:27-28); and (3) that in both narratives the word פּעם [was disquieted] is used (Gen 41:8; Dan 2:1, Dan 2:3). In all other respects the narratives are entirely different. But “the resemblance,” as Hengst. has already well remarked (Beitr. i. p. 82), “is explained partly from the great significance which in ancient times was universally attached to dreams and their interpretation, partly from the dispensations of divine providence, which at different times has made use of this means for the deliverance of the chosen people.” In addition to this, Kran., p. 70, has not less appropriately said: “But that only one belonging to the people of God should in both cases have had communicated to him the interpretation of the dream, is not more to be wondered at than that there is a true God who morally and spiritually supports and raises those who know and acknowledge Him, according to psychological laws, even in a peculiar way.” Moreover, if the word פצם was really borrowed from Gen 41:8, that would prove nothing more than that Daniel had read the books of Moses. But the grounds on which the above-named critics wish to prove the unhistorical character of this narrative are formed partly from a superficial consideration of the whole narrative and a manifestly false interpretation of separate parts of it, and partly from the dogmatic prejudice that “a particular foretelling of a remote future is not the nature of Hebrew prophecy,” i.e., in other words, that there is no prediction arising from a supernatural revelation. Against the other grounds Kran. has already very truly remarked: “That the narrative of the actual circumstances wants (cf. Hitz. p. 17) proportion and unity, is not corroborated by a just view of the situation; the whole statement rather leaves the impression of a lively, fresh immediateness, in which a careful consideration of the circumstances easily furnishes the means for filling up the details of the brief sketch.” Hence it follows that the contents of the dream show not the least resemblance to Pharaoh's dream, and in the whole story there is no trace seen of a hostile relation of Nebuchadnezzar and his courtiers to Judaism; nay rather Nebuchadnezzar' relation to the God of Daniel presents a decided contrast to the mad rage of Antiochus Epiphanes against the Jewish religion.